Germany Lost the War... So What?

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
The US postwar history:


Facts arent your strong point are they ?

Korea: stalemate

South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves in:
millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf

On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get the
Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet nuclear
capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm

So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big deal.
More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the Jupiter
removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
clan).


The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
not that there was no concession.

Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
plans? I think not. I'd call that more in the line of a bargain (and be
aware that my views on this have changed over the past year or two, after
this subject was previously discussed and I had reason to peruse Gromyko's
book, followed by a bit of reading on where the Jupiter program was going at
the time). I am not a big Kennedy fan, to put it mildly--but in this case he
gave up what we already wanted to rid ourselves of and in the process
swecured what we *wanted*, namely the removal of those SS-4's from Cuba.



snip

Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and
Osama
escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.

Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups

Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.

Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--

If Taliban comes, can Osama be far behind?

"If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority of
Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing them
from power was a *good* thing. AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.


and that a few
other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
terrorist
operations.

This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and even
reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF has
been a significant success.



snip


Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined

LOL! Tell us more.

Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the
US
population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX,
CA)
only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further
if
you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.

www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html


and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe.

Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.

That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;

There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
independence, merely a US lackey.

Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites. The UK
remains capable of determining its own course. In fact, Blair has reportedly
had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
direction at times over the past few years. Most USians still have a great
deal of respect for the UK, and while it cannot any longer muster the level
of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to be
a partner as opposed to a "lackey". Common language (for the most part) and
a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between the
two nations.


that it has
happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much
a
product of common values than anything else.

ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,

No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
commodity vital to most of the rest of the world. You act as if this is some
sort of colonial conquest--but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
their own government and affairs. That would be another one of those "good
things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past thirty
years or so.

propaganda over facts.

It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts, since
you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy theory.
You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime without
question.


Reading anything further into
it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
part?

No.


And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?

I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK in a
military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Fear of US is
understandable - its rich, powerful

Yep, we are.

snip inane whining

But
why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
up.

That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world. It
has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the USAF.
During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to our
CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra PR9
and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF are
truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.



Germany might
not have won,

No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?

You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.

Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about the
spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a serious
morality flaw.

To me it is a
story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
sad but engrossing history to me.

My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore the
gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that the
defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our parents
lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.


I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.

Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
Empire is now history.

One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate. Odd that
you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism, yet so
willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

snip


but Britain sure seems to have lost.

Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?

I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).

France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
that beating.

UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
smashed non the less.

Odd, in that they were on the winning side. The disintegration of their
former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before the
war. And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
retaining control of its old colonial holdings. Time marches on and the
world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather important
place in the greater scheme of world order. That would be another "good
thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had they
not been on the winning side during WWII.



Now
France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...

Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
or UK can you?

In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Brooks


sorry if that all
upsets you, but them's the facts.

So nice of you to be concerned about my happiness Grofaz. Thanks.


Brooks


Keith

On 19 Feb 2004 20:54:27 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

By your lights you'd have us kill every living thing in
Afghanstan and Iraq, I guess, just to be sure we got the
Bad Guys (tm).

Or do you have a (realistic) better idea?

Arn't would deploy the 61th SS "Snowballfight" Panzer Div, which would mop up
the entire mid-east in 48 hours.

Only after 69th SS Panzer Division "Goldenboy", 19th SS
Panzergrenadier Division "Funboy" and 99th SS Panzergrenadier Division
"Leatherboy", who would conquer Afghanistan after they finished making
those homo-erotic films of themselves playing volleyball naked with
all those Hitler Youth or marching around in creaking black leather
whipping the untermenschen with an array of S&M gear.

Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!

Gavin Bailey

You didn't mention winning the Cold War. Try doing the whole thing over,
while including the truth and see if you come to the same conclusions.


The Cold War won by Global Financial Power not by US alone,in other words not
by Global Military Power.
Every post WWII US administration ,except Nixon and current administrations,was
endorsed by Global Financial Power.
Lets remember what happened to Nixon and why Wall Street Barons openly declared
war aganist current administration.
For global financial power, global military power is only a profit reducing
tool that they no longer need.

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.


So,US nuclear tipped missilles were also withdrawn as the USSR demanded.
Correct?

The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
about the going it alone bit.

Honestly I admire British "Great Game" playing skills.
They returned to South iraqi oil fields using US card and I am also pretty sure
they will return to northern oil fields by using EU card in near future.
Texan or Alabamian nativity is not a very good credential when it comes to
playing "The Great Game" with the Brits.

Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....


With US encouragement of course.
Iraq had to start GW1 so that US could start with the implementation of
Kissingers plan called "Seizing Arab Oil
".Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

You seem to forget that the British Empire in 1939 stretched from N.America to
Africa,from Europa to Mideast,From Subcontinent to the down under.
Can you give us an idea about the Human and natural resources controlled by
British Crown in 1939?
Actually I thing the Brits had the finest fighting force Germans faced during
WWII,

In message KiVYb.27758$Zt4.11905@okepread01, t_mark
writes
On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.

Hardly. China is dependent on the US, directly and indirectly, for the
majority of its annual growth and over 20% of its entire economy. That's
not going to change much in the future as the two become more and more
intertwined.

I'm minded of the confident predictions around the start of the 20th
Century, about how the Great Powers were now so intertwined by trade and
diplomacy that a major war was now unthinkable and impossible.

Whoops.

To even get into a position to battle America in Asia, much
less elsewhere, would require decades of spending the Chinese can't even
afford to build up to, and have no reason to. It won't be smooth sailing,
but China has vastly more reasons to remain friends if not allies with the
United States than to plunge itself back into the middle of last century and
ruin decades of economic building by trying to fight it.

True, but common sense can be remarkably elusive on occasion.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.


So,US nuclear tipped missilles were also withdrawn as the USSR demanded.
Correct?


Indeed but they were due for removal within 12 months
in any event. There's little doubt that Khruschev lost a great
deal of prestige over the Cuban missile affair and his
position was weakened.

Kenedy came out of the affair rather better.

The British troops who took Southern Iraq and Basra tend to disagree
about the going it alone bit.

Honestly I admire British "Great Game" playing skills.
They returned to South iraqi oil fields using US card and I am also pretty
sure
they will return to northern oil fields by using EU card in near future.
Texan or Alabamian nativity is not a very good credential when it comes to
playing "The Great Game" with the Brits.

Iraq started GW1 with the 4th largest army in the world and
a large AF and air defence system, of course when it was over ....


With US encouragement of course.

Nope, the Iraqi government assure everyone including the Arab league
and the US government that it would not actually invade Kuwait.
Its worth noting that the Kuwaitis dont believe this piece
of nonsense.


Iraq had to start GW1 so that US could start with the implementation of
Kissingers plan called "Seizing Arab Oil

Kissinger wasnt in the administration

".Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined
and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

You seem to forget that the British Empire in 1939 stretched from
N.America to
Africa,from Europa to Mideast,From Subcontinent to the down under.
Can you give us an idea about the Human and natural resources controlled
by
British Crown in 1939?

You seem to forget that Australia, Canada and New Zealand were already
indpendent in 1939 and that India was already moving in that direction
with elected bodies already being responsible for everything except defence
and foreign policy. Full independence was planned for around 1948, more
or less when it actually happened

Actually I thing the Brits had the finest fighting force Germans faced
during
WWII,


In fact as any British soldier who ever served with them will tell
you the best light infantry to be found were the Ghurka's who
come from Nepal, which was never part of the Empire.

Keith

ctually in this, robert arndt is right. Its one thing to take on powers
like Iraq, Serbia and N Vietnam but its another to take on nuclear
powers. The situation with crazies like N Korea is very disturbing.

We have a situation now where there are countries that are safe to
attack and others where it is not.

100 percent correct,the survival of not only US but all western
countries,depends on the availability of an opponent that cares about MAD,if
you cannot deter your nuclear opponent you MUST stay at home.

A couple of nuclear tipped ICBMs in the hands of an opponent willing to use
them no matter what are much more dangerous than 10000 nuclear weapons in the
hands of opponents afraid to use them.

That was the lesson Mr.Andropov learned from Mr.Philby,a top product of the
western civilization.

Kissinger wasnt in the administration

You dont need to be in administration,administrations execute the plans and
Kissingers plan known as "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared first in 1975.

Current caretakers of Kissingers plan are also known as "Straussians" but
Mr.Strauss himself was never been a part of any administration.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message KiVYb.27758$Zt4.11905@okepread01, t_mark
writes
On Russia maybe, but fighting with China in the future is inevitable.

Hardly. China is dependent on the US, directly and indirectly, for the
majority of its annual growth and over 20% of its entire economy. That's
not going to change much in the future as the two become more and more
intertwined.

I'm minded of the confident predictions around the start of the 20th
Century, about how the Great Powers were now so intertwined by trade and
diplomacy that a major war was now unthinkable and impossible.

Whoops.

To even get into a position to battle America in Asia, much
less elsewhere, would require decades of spending the Chinese can't even
afford to build up to, and have no reason to. It won't be smooth sailing,
but China has vastly more reasons to remain friends if not allies with the
United States than to plunge itself back into the middle of last century and
ruin decades of economic building by trying to fight it.

True, but common sense can be remarkably elusive on occasion.

And what a disappointment *you* turned out to be. Where's KP, eh?

Grantland
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Kissinger wasnt in the administration

You dont need to be in administration,administrations execute the plans
and
Kissingers plan known as "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared first in 1975.

Current caretakers of Kissingers plan are also known as "Straussians" but
Mr.Strauss himself was never been a part of any administration.

There's no need to seize it, the Arabs will sell it anyway or starve.

Keith